If the four long-shot presidential contenders are “kind of Don Quixotes,” as debate moderator Larry King put it, then at least on Tuesday night their windmill jousting would be televised.

Those who saw Jill Stein (Green Party), Rocky Anderson (Justice Party), Virgil Goode (Constitution Party), and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) square off at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Chicago on C-SPAN or streamed online got a glimpse of the little-known contenders below President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney on the ballot in many states.

What the public saw was broad agreement on issues ranging from the war on drugs (end it) to the future of American military spending (reduce it), as well as a handful of proposals from each candidate that stand in stark relief to the policies of either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney.

The candidates found plenty of common ground. All four opposed rules that winnow contenders for public office, saying they are bad for democracy and unnecessarily limit voter choices. All supported reductions in American military spending. All said they would have vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act.

All but Mr. Goode said they would legalize marijuana and end the “war on drugs.” Goode said he would keep marijuana illegal but would cut spending on drug enforcement as part of his plan to deeply reduce federal spending in his first year in office.

But the candidates did open up some policy proposals sharply different from one another and from the two major-party presidential candidates.

Dr. Stein and Mr. Anderson called for free higher education for all Americans, with Stein pointing out the benefits from the original, post-World War II G.I. bill and Anderson arguing that other industrialized nations have already achieved such a system.

Johnson and Goode ridiculed the sentiment as ignoring the reality of America’s beleaguered fiscal condition.

“ ‘Free’ comes with a cost,” Johnson said. “ ‘Free’ is accumulating more to the $16 trillion in debt than we already have. ‘Free’ has gotten us to the point where we are going to have a monetary collapse.”

When asked to offer one constitutional amendment they would most like to see passed, the candidates again diverged. Anderson argued for a “new Equal Rights Amendment” enshrining protection from discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

Johnson and Goode said they would push for term limits for Congress – something they say would keep members focused on achievement instead of political longevity.

Stein said that even with term limits, “corporations and big money can still buy what they want.” Hence, her preferred amendment would upend the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling authorizing limitless campaign spending by corporations and individuals.

Other notable offerings unmentioned by the two major-party candidates included:

•Stein, a physician, promised a “New Green Deal” of 25 million jobs in fields like sustainable energy and mass transit and bailing out American student loan debt.
•Anderson, a former two-time Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, said the major candidates had all but ignored two significant issues: America’s poor, with poverty at its highest level since 1965, and climate change.
•Goode, a former six-term congressman from Virginia, argued for a “near-complete moratorium” on new immigration to the US until unemployment fell under 5 percent.
•Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, vowed to not bomb Iran and to repeal the Patriot Act.
Johnson – whose flip observation during his only GOP primary debate that his neighbor’s dog had produced more “shovel ready jobs” than Obama’s stimulus plan – was the source of much of the night’s levity.

In a debate peppered with complaints about how big money had infected the two major political parties and America’s democratic system, none drove the point home so squarely as when Johnson argued that candidates should, during debates, have to wear NASCAR-esque jackets sewn with the logos of their biggest donors.

Definitely got to watch this, people got mad at me saying I will be distracting people from the election with this. I don't even know how this could even hurt anyone, I just think its time to get people thinking. SMH, I'm totally done with people at this point.

But man, I would've paid big money to see Ron Paul go at it with Obama, instead of Romney's wack ass. Unfortunately, I'll probably never see it happen. Paul vs. Obama would've been a hell of an interesting debate. Two great minds, but coming from two very different mindsets. Lots of knowledge and truth would've been dropped instead of the empty rhetoric and jocking fest Romney put on. Paul is like the Marciano of debates, like 49-0, never lost. He waxed Romney's ass plenty of times:

heh yeah that's true, but why do you post out of nowhere but in regular, spaced-out intervals? aint you averaging like one post a month? this going to be like your one post for the month. i could go on make a corny period* joke but i'm a chill.

heh yeah that's true, but why do you post out of nowhere but in regular, spaced-out intervals? aint you averaging like one post a month? this going to be like your one post for the month. i could go on make a corny period* joke but i'm a chill.

Yeah, I think I average a post every three months. I don't dig the new format. Also don't like the sub forum race and religion thing. They effectively killed it.

Saw the very end of it on C-Span. I will be voting for Obama because Romney is far worse...but the two party system (along with the electoral college) is not democracy.

How is Romney far worse? Explain.

As governor, Romney attempted to cut programs for the sake of cutting programs with no concern for their impact on citizens, or concern for the fact that they were going to cost the state more if his attempts didn't get vetoed.

All of these cuts were pure ideology with absolutely no planning or details explaining why he wanted to cut those programs. The fact that Romney lies his ass off about anything and everything and switches his non existent positions on the fly should dismiss any fallacy that these two men are in any way the same. But i guess one or two topic issues matter more to some people.

What's even more despicable is that his party has made every attempt to rig the vote. His son owns voting machines for fucks sake.

They should have been allowed to participate in the debates with the two major party candidates.

I'm not a fan of the "two party system," especially if all of the major outlets solely report on them.

Ross Perot was in the 1992 debates. Ross Perot WON the first one. You know why? BECAUSE ROSS PEROT WAS LEADING THE PRESIDENTIAL POLLING AT ONE POINT. Gary Johnson excluded, who the fuck are these guys? Who the fuck is the "Justice Party"? Do you realize how crazy fuckwow fascist the Constitution Party is? Does the Green Party's nominee believe in 9/11 Conspiracies and U.S soldiers secretly executing 5,000 ppl during Katrina this time? How come when I voted today, the Libertarian Party had a County Treasurer candidate, but their slot next to the U.S Congress slot was blank?

Nobody takes 3rd parties seriously because they're a fucking joke 99% of the time. Their only hope is for one of the major parties to collapse so they can take its place. That's how we got the Republicans.